Latest news with #Alsup
Mint
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Donald Trump's first 100 days in office: A clash with judges who opposed his policies
In the first 100 days of his second term, US President Donald Trump has found himself locked in a fierce confrontation with the federal judiciary. Several key court rulings have blocked his administration's controversial policies on mass firings and deportations, leading to a growing legal battle. Trump has responded with sharp criticisms of the judges involved. As legal challenges mount, the clash between the Trump administration and the courts has become one of the most significant aspects of his early term. On March 14, US District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ordered the Trump administration to rehire thousands of federal probationary employees who were fired in February. Judge Alsup, appointed by President Bill Clinton, found the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) mass firings unlawful. 'It is a sad day when our government would fire a good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that is a lie,' Alsup said. Alsup criticised the administration for attempting to block OPM's acting director Charles Ezell from testifying, after Ezell's written statement was withdrawn. Judge James Bredar in Maryland also ruled against the layoffs, issuing a two-week halt and finding that Trump officials had bypassed proper procedures. On March 15, Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking deportations under Trump's executive orders. However, the administration proceeded with deportations to El Salvador, escalating tensions. In court, Boasberg attempted to order deportation flights to be returned, arguing the administration was in open defiance. According to CNN, Boasberg demanded clarity on Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify removals, questioning the timing of deportations. Trump later lashed out at Boasberg on Truth Social, calling him a "Radical Left Lunatic" and claiming: "This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" Trump warns judges are overstepping after layoff rulings On March 17, Trump defended his mass layoffs of about 30,000 probationary federal employees after two judges blocked the move. Trump called the rulings 'ridiculous' and warned that judges were overstepping presidential authority. Judges William Alsup and James Bredar ruled the firings illegal, ordering reinstatements and halts to the dismissals. On March 22, Trump warned that nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges could lead to "the destruction of our Country." He accused judges of "usurping presidential authority" and demanded action from Chief Justice John Roberts. "Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country! These people are Lunatics," Trump wrote on Truth Social. He singled out Boasberg again, branding him a "grandstander looking for publicity." By March 24, the Justice Department appealed Alsup's ruling to the US Supreme Court after being ordered to reinstate fired workers. The administration framed its federal downsizing initiative as a crucial reform to "inefficiency" in government, supported by billionaire Elon Musk. Separately, on March 25, US Circuit Judge Patricia Millett blasted Trump's deportation policy in a heated hearing, stating: "Nazis were given more rights to contest their removal from the United States during World War II," according to The Washington Post. The comment highlighted concerns that Venezuelan migrants were denied basic legal rights. 'From the moment he was seized, it was unconstitutional,' Xinis said, per NPR. Justice Department lawyers admitted the deportation was an administrative error but argued the judge lacked authority because Garcia was no longer in US custody. Meanwhile, Boasberg ruled on April 16 that there was 'probable cause' to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt for ignoring a court order blocking deportations, reported The New York Times. In an emergency 7–2 decision on April 19, the US Supreme Court temporarily blocked the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan detainees. The Court directed the government "not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees until further order." A federal judge in Colorado also ordered on April 22 that Venezuelans be given 21 days' notice before deportations, adding further hurdles to Trump's immigration crackdown. On April 23, Trump again criticised judges for blocking his migrant deportation efforts, arguing the US legal system isn't built to give every migrant a full trial. Responding to recent court rulings requiring due process before deportations, Trump said the system wasn't meant for mass trials and warned that delays could make the country "very dangerous." When asked whether the administration would arrest judges, Leavitt said: 'Anyone who is breaking the law or obstructing federal law enforcement officials from doing their jobs is putting themselves at risk of being prosecuted, absolutely.' She added that judges helping migrants evade detention were committing 'a clear-cut case of obstruction.' First Published: 29 Apr 2025, 02:42 AM IST
Reuters
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Trump administration ordered to retract 'sham' rationale for firing workers
April 21 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge has ordered the Trump administration to put in writing that thousands of federal workers were not fired over their performance as agencies had claimed in terminating them en masse. U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco late Friday said, opens new tab claims by six agencies that nearly 17,000 probationary workers were fired in February because of their individual performance was "a total sham" that could hobble their careers. Alsup in March had ordered the agencies to reinstate the workers, but the U.S. Supreme Court paused that ruling earlier this month. On Friday he declined a request by a group of unions and the state of Washington to order reinstatement a second time. The judge ordered the agencies to provide workers with written statements by May 8 stating that their terminations were not based on performance or fitness but were made as part of a government-wide mass termination. Probationary employees typically have less than one year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees, and are easier to fire than career civil servants. The White House and the office of Washington Attorney General Nicholas Brown did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday. The lead plaintiff in the case is the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 800,000 federal workers. AFGE President Everett Kelley in a statement praised the ruling for "dismantling the false narrative that these employees were terminated for poor performance when no such thing occurred." The mass firings were part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump, a Republican, and billionaire Elon Musk to drastically shrink the federal bureaucracy and slash government spending, which has invited a series of legal challenges. The plaintiffs in the case before Alsup claim that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which manages the federal civilian workforce, unlawfully directed firings by agencies and falsely stated that they were for performance reasons. Alsup, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton, had found in March that OPM improperly ordered the firings. He ruled on behalf of nonprofit groups that had also sued, but did not address claims by the unions and Washington at the time. The Supreme Court on April 8 put Alsup's ruling on hold pending further litigation, saying the nonprofits likely lacked standing to sue. The order applies to the Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs departments. A judge in Maryland in March had separately ordered 18 agencies — including five of the six subject to Alsup's order — to reinstate about 25,000 probationary employees. That ruling has been put on hold by an appeals court. Alsup on Friday said there was now much less need for an order reinstating the workers because OPM in response to his March ruling had told agencies that it was not requiring them to fire any employees. But he said the workers' records should not reflect that their firings had anything to do with their performance. "Countless high-performing employees ... were terminated through a lie," Alsup wrote. "The stain created by OPM's pretense will follow each employee through their careers and will limit their professional opportunities." The judge said the order does not prohibit the agencies from terminating employees "so long as the agency makes that decision wholly on its own." The case is American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 25-cv-1780. For the plaintiffs: Danielle Leonard and Stacey Leyton of Altshuler Berzon For the government: Kelsey Helland of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court halts reinstatement of fired federal employees US appeals court sides with Trump, clears way to fire thousands of federal workers US judges order Trump administration to reinstate thousands of fired workers Trump administration reinstating almost 25,000 fired workers after court order Trump takes challenge to judge's federal worker rehiring order to Supreme Court US judge halts Trump administration's calls for mass firings at agencies Trump poised to launch new round of layoffs despite setbacks in court US agencies face Thursday deadline to submit mass layoff plans
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge orders Trump administration to tell fired workers they were not let go for poor performance
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A U.S. district judge in San Francisco on Friday ordered the Trump administration to provide probationary workers fired en masse a written statement saying they were not terminated for performance reasons, but as part of a government-wide termination. Judge William Alsup is overseeing a lawsuit brought by labor unions and nonprofits contesting the mass firings of thousands of probationary workers in February under Republican President Donald Trump. In March, Alsup ordered six federal agencies to reinstate probationary workers because their terminations were directed by the Office of Personnel Management, which did not have the authority to fire workers at any other agency but its own. The U.S. Supreme Court last week blocked Alsup's order requiring the administration to return those terminated employees to work, but did not decide whether the firings were unlawful. Alsup was particularly upset that the firings of probationary workers — many young and early in their careers — followed an OPM template stating that the person had been fired for poor performance. 'Termination under the false pretense of performance is an injury that will persist for the working life of each civil servant,' wrote Alsup in Friday's order. 'The stain created by OPM's pretense will follow each employee through their careers and will limit their professional opportunities.' The administration has defined performance to account for job indispensability as Trump seeks to drastically reduce the federal workforce. Lawyers for the administration also say that OPM did not order the firings, but Alsup found it was impossible for federal agencies to assess each worker's performance in only a matter of days. In Friday's order, Alsup said the fired workers must receive the written statements by May 8. If a worker was fired after an individualized evaluation of that employee's performance or fitness, the agency must submit by May 8 'a declaration, under oath and seal, stating so and providing the individual reasoning underpinning that termination.' A federal judge in Maryland overseeing a similar complaint brought by 19 states found the administration did not follow laws set out for large-scale layoffs, including 60 days' advance notice. A preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge James Bredar ordering reinstatement of the workers was overturned last week by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Associated Press
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Judge orders Trump administration to tell fired workers they were not let go for poor performance
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A U.S. district judge in San Francisco on Friday ordered the Trump administration to provide probationary workers fired en masse a written statement saying they were not terminated for performance reasons, but as part of a government-wide termination. Judge William Alsup is overseeing a lawsuit brought by labor unions and nonprofits contesting the mass firings of thousands of probationary workers in February under Republican President Donald Trump. In March, Alsup ordered six federal agencies to reinstate probationary workers because their terminations were directed by the Office of Personnel Management, which did not have the authority to fire workers at any other agency but its own. The U.S. Supreme Court last week blocked Alsup's order requiring the administration to return those terminated employees to work, but did not decide whether the firings were unlawful. Alsup was particularly upset that the firings of probationary workers — many young and early in their careers — followed an OPM template stating that the person had been fired for poor performance. 'Termination under the false pretense of performance is an injury that will persist for the working life of each civil servant,' wrote Alsup in Friday's order. 'The stain created by OPM's pretense will follow each employee through their careers and will limit their professional opportunities.' The administration has defined performance to account for job indispensability as Trump seeks to drastically reduce the federal workforce. Lawyers for the administration also say that OPM did not order the firings, but Alsup found it was impossible for federal agencies to assess each worker's performance in only a matter of days. In Friday's order, Alsup said the fired workers must receive the written statements by May 8. If a worker was fired after an individualized evaluation of that employee's performance or fitness, the agency must submit by May 8 'a declaration, under oath and seal, stating so and providing the individual reasoning underpinning that termination.' A federal judge in Maryland overseeing a similar complaint brought by 19 states found the administration did not follow laws set out for large-scale layoffs, including 60 days' advance notice. A preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge James Bredar ordering reinstatement of the workers was overturned last week by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Guardian
08-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court blocks ruling that 16,000 fired federal workers must be rehired
The US supreme court has handed Donald Trump a reprieve from a judge's ruling that his administration must rehire 16,000 probationary workers fired in its purge of the federal bureaucracy. A day after ruling in the White House's favor to allow the continued deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, the court gave the White House a less clear-cut victory in halting the order by a California court that dismissed workers from six government agencies must be rehired. The court struck down by a 7-2 majority last month's ruling by US district court judge William Alsup because non-profit groups who had sued on behalf of the fired workers had no legal standing. It did not rule on the firings themselves, which affected probationary workers in the Pentagon, the treasury, and the departments of energy, agriculture, interior and veterans affairs. 'The district court's injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case,' the unsigned ruling read. 'But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations' standing. This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the district court's preliminary injunction.' Two of the court's three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. The victory, though limited, is likely to embolden the Trump administration in the belief that the spate of legal reverses it has faced since taking office can be eventually overturned in the supreme court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, due largely to three rightwing judges Trump nominated to the bench during his first presidency. The extent of Tuesday's victory was qualified by the fact that it does not affect a separate order by a judge in Maryland applying to the same agencies plus several others. Judge James Bredar of the Maryland federal district court ordered the administration to reinstate workers in response to a case brought by 19 states and the government of Washington DC. In the California ruling, the court heard how staff were informed by a templated email from the office of personnel management that they were losing their jobs for performance-related reasons. 'The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest,' the email said. While accepting that workforce reductions were acceptable if carried out 'correctly under the law', Alsup said workers had been fired for bogus reasons. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion 'It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee, and say it was based on performance, when they know good and well, that's a lie,' he said. In filings to the supreme court, the acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, argued that Alsup had exceeded his powers. 'The court's extraordinary reinstatement order violates the separation of powers, arrogating to a single district court the executive branch's powers of personnel management on the flimsiest of grounds and the hastiest of timelines,' she wrote. 'That is no way to run a government. This court should stop the ongoing assault on the constitutional structure before further damage is wrought.'
